If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Christians called "intolerant" by some stupid atheist who is going to burn in hell when he gets there   (theherald.co.uk) divider line 678
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

14364 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Mar 2009 at 2:20 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



678 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-03-25 01:17:01 PM
Zamboro: Deuce McStinkle: "So, yes, God had some people killed in the OT. I'm still not seeing your point."

"Killed some people"? It was a classically defined genocide. Whole populations were exterminated, down to evey last X, where X is "Canaanite", or any of the other tribes indigenous to the region when the Israelites swept through.

It's genocide. A holocaust. Your God commanded it. You worship a cosmic Hitler.


Wrong. Fundamental flaw in logic.

Hitler: human, subject to God's law. Profane. Fallen. Unable to do any good whatosever. Base. Subject to his own limited understanding of the universe.

God: immortal, not human, subject to His will and His will alone. Sacred. Transcendent. Beyond measuring. Sees all times simultaneously.

You can't fit God into your tiny understanding of human nature.
 
2009-03-25 01:17:57 PM
Deuce McStinkle: 4. Slice it how you wish, my friend. You seem to be convinced in your moral righteousness.

So genocide is okay if god tells me to do it?
 
2009-03-25 01:18:20 PM
one of my co-workers is all "JC"
so I says, "so you're against the death penalty, right?"
"nope" he says.
says I, "but what if an innocent man is put to death by mistake?"
"better that an innocent man die than the guilty go free." he says.
says I, " but if an innocent man dies then by default the one guilty of the murder has gone free."
"no, that means we have executed the guilty person." he says.
says I" but we didn't execute the person who committed the crime"
"but we did execute the person found guilty of the crime" he says.

he still could not fathom that an Athiest held a more moral, more JC position than he did.
 
2009-03-25 01:18:36 PM
Deuce McStinkle: God: immortal, not human, subject to His will and His will alone. Sacred. Transcendent. Beyond measuring. Sees all times simultaneously.

[evidence needed]
 
2009-03-25 01:19:02 PM
Zamboro: Deuce McStinkle: "1. Of course I believe in a soul."

Then you're in the same camp as these people. The existence of the soul is contradicted by the findings of cognitive neurobiology. You're no better than a creationist in this regard.

Deuce McStinkle: "2. Of course I believe in a creator God."

Why? I've already posted links to research demonstrating a natural mechanism for causation of the big bang. What makes you think the universe must've been created?

Deuce McStinkle: "3. You're pulling out of context again, misunderstanding the cultural background of a text."

No, I'm not. You're throwing around "Out of context" as if it were a "Get out of facing the ugly brutality in the Bible free" card. I studied the Bible for hours every morning during the three years I attended a Christian academy, then at length on my own time in an Episcopal school. You may be able to use that bit on others, but it doesn't work on me, because I know when you're bullshiatting.

The context is that the Israelites, having been led by Moses into the promised land, found it inhabited by indigenous populations, which they were then commanded to completely exterminate right down to the livestock. When one military leader kept some of the livestock for himself, God lectured and punished him. The only instance in which any were spared was when Moses was permitted to keep a few thousand virginal girls for his men.

In context, all things considered, it's still inexcusable. You cannot justify genocide, and when you find yourself trying to do so, you need to stop and ask yourself what kind of monster your religious beliefs have made you into.


It's inexcusable if a HUMAN did it. God is not human. He is above all things. If God wanted me to catch fire right now, then I would. And I'd have no reason to biatch; neither would you. You're not immortal. You don't have a full understanding of all things. You don't see the universe and time as He does.

In short, you're not God, and that, above all things, is what angers atheists: the idea that their eternal fates DO NOT rest in their hands.
 
2009-03-25 01:19:46 PM
Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: mloree: Zamboro: Deuce McStinkle: "So, yes, God had some people killed in the OT. I'm still not seeing your point."

"Killed some people"? It was a classically defined genocide. Whole populations were exterminated, down to evey last X, where X is "Canaanite", or any of the other tribes indigenous to the region when the Israelites swept through.

It's genocide. A holocaust. Your God commanded it. You worship a cosmic Hitler.

anyone want to got for a Godwin trifecta?

ubetcha


Still wrong. Keep trying. Keep failing.
 
2009-03-25 01:20:27 PM
Deuce McStinkle: Zamboro: Deuce McStinkle: "So, yes, God had some people killed in the OT. I'm still not seeing your point."

God: immortal, not human, subject to His will and His will alone. Sacred. Transcendent. Beyond measuring. Sees all times simultaneously.

You can't fit God into your tiny understanding of human nature.


Wait - didn't you just fit God into your understanding of human nature by giving those characteristics (immortal,Sacred,etc)?
 
2009-03-25 01:21:14 PM
maddogdelta: Deuce McStinkle: Just because you don't understand why God decided to have these people killed doesn't undercut the truth of Christianity.

So...if God has a good reason to commit genocide, then it's ok? Or is it OK because he's God, and so whatever he does is right?


And besides, I was actually addressing your question regarding genocide...To wit:

2. I'm not sure what "genocide" you're addressing. Please be specific.

I brought up 2 specific genocides, quoted straight from 1 Samuel and Numbers. I don't think these two books of the bible are part of some conspiracy to discredit God, but I would be happy to entertain any evidence you have to demonstrate that I am incorrect.

But allow me to ask you about your original post...remember, this one?

Wheeee! Look at me! I know nothing about religion, yet I feel the need to shoot off my mouth, paint with a broad brush, and stereotype all Christians.

Wheeeee!!! I've never even read the Bible! I wouldn't know an epistle from a psalm, yet I'm qualified to dismiss all forms of Christianity!

Wheeee!! Look at me! I've got internet access, so I have earned the right to speak on subjects about which I have absolutely no knowledge!

Wheee!! Look at me! I learned everything that I know about Christianity from an intro to philosophy course at my junior college and from those highly-regarded geniuses at the 4chan message boards!

Wheeeee!!!!

The basic premise was that atheists never read the bible, and paint all Christians with "a broad brush" to quote your phrase.

um.... don't you think your brush was a little broad? I had to point out to you where 2 genocides, authorized by God, are in the bible, which you seem to have forgotten, in spite of your vast knowledge of the bible.


My Lord, you're shallow. Why says I forgot anything? I just wanted you to be specific; that's all.

Or is that beyond your ability? Or is asking you to verify your claims unfair somehow? Have I offended your sensibilities?

So sorry.
 
2009-03-25 01:22:21 PM
twoowlz: "Zamboro, the mechanism will be explained---you'll see. Or maybe you won't see since you know everything already."

You accuse me of claiming to know everything, immediately after you claim to know what the future of quantum research will reveal.

Look, I don't think I know everything. I don't have a terribly high opinion of myself. But it seems like every time I argue someone with supernatural beliefs into a corner, they react by accusing me of arrogance, as if I must believe myself to have godlike knowledge in order to presume to refute their beliefs.

Is that really all you're left with? I'd rather hear your counterarguments, if you have any.
 
2009-03-25 01:23:14 PM
Premeditated_Road_Rage: Deuce McStinkle:

I have been following your comments through the thread and I must say that they amuse me greatly.

I do need to ask, though, why if a Christian quotes a few verses from the bible for their agenda, it is considered "Preaching the Gospel Truth", but if a non-Christian does it, it is "Quoting out of context"?

And yes, your God is a genocidal god with either no plan whatsoever or a plan so twisted and sick that it would make even the most rabid lunatic ask "What the FARK is his problem?" Think about it: If "God" so loves all people, why did "He" allow nations like the Canaanites to rise up in the first place after the flood and then order others of his 'loved creatures' to kill their 'brothers' like that?

I think it all boils down to God being a big ol' invisible Michael Vic, myself - He creates us, pens us in separate 'cages' (nations/religions), and then on days like today, 9/11, etc., he dings the bell and pits his dogs (believers) against one another for personal amusement and/or ego-stroking.


Clearly, you know nothing of God. I'm suspicious of those who make such claims.

As though you have access to God's eternal plan.

None of us do. That's the point. We are NOT GOD. How are you not seeing this fact? Deal with it: you're limited. Your understanding of God and the universe is limited. You'll never ever understand all things. Is that a tough pill to swallow?

If so, I'm sorry. But it's the truth.
 
2009-03-25 01:24:47 PM
jekxrb: Zamboro: In context, all things considered, it's still inexcusable. You cannot justify genocide, and when you find yourself trying to do so, you need to stop and ask yourself what kind of monster your religious beliefs have made you into.

Amen

;-)

maddogdelta: So...if God has a good reason to commit genocide, then it's ok? Or is it OK because he's God, and so whatever he does is right?

Yeah, I don't think this argument can ever be won, because whenever we question something that doesn't make sense, they'll just rebut with, well, of course it doesn't make sense to US. But god in his all knowing has reasons that we don't know...



OR we'll get some fabulous circular reasoning:



So, really, we should just accept that Jesus was sent to us for a very special reason...


Look at me! Wheeeee!! I can beat a dead horse!! I can post nonsensical graphics that I find on the internet! Wheeee!!!

/fail
//try again
 
2009-03-25 01:27:40 PM
hailin: Aww, maybe I'm too late to jump into this thread, but here it goes: ... Yup, religion is SUCH a positive influence on our society. Just think, their families would not be so colorful without keeping their heads constantly up their own asses.

That's all well and good, but those other families will have the last laugh when you and your nice family are burning in hell for not going to church every Sunday!
 
2009-03-25 01:28:31 PM
Deuce McStinkle: "It's inexcusable if a HUMAN did it. God is not human. He is above all things. If God wanted me to catch fire right now, then I would. And I'd have no reason to biatch; neither would you. You're not immortal. You don't have a full understanding of all things. You don't see the universe and time as He does."

So it's okay to exterminate whole populations if God tells you to do it?

Is something moral because God commands it, or does God command it because it is moral? If the former, then anything (no matter how horrible) can be justified. If the latter, then there is a moral standard external to God by which his actions can be judged.

Deuce McStinkle: "In short, you're not God, and that, above all things, is what angers atheists: the idea that their eternal fates DO NOT rest in their hands."

There is no Yahweh, any more than there is a Ganesh or a Zeus. You believe in the Christian god because you were raised in a Christian family, in a predominantly Christian country. If you'd been raised in Saudi Arabia, you would probably be a muslim. If you were raised in India, odds are you'd be a Hindu. In either case you'd be every bit as convinced that your religion was uniquely credible and that all others were human inventions.
 
2009-03-25 01:28:39 PM
Zamboro: colon_pow: "they were wicked idolators. God judged the Canaanites, and wiped them out. not the first time. remember the flood?"

We might consider the people of Afghanistan or North Korea to be wicked. Does that authorize us to exterminate them?

colon_pow: "Won't be the last time either."

You're right, it won't be the last time. Not so long as there are people out there who believe that there are circumstances in which it's okay to exterminate whole populations. I'm lookin' at you, buddy.


no, we don't do the judging in those matters ourselves. God judged them. if He judges the N. Koreans or Afghans that way, then heaven help them. he does that from time to time. people don't like it either. he judged Sodom and Gomorrah also. i'm sure the sodomites didn't like it either. I'm lookin' at you buddy.

jk
 
2009-03-25 01:28:59 PM
The Icelander: Deuce McStinkle: God: immortal, not human, subject to His will and His will alone. Sacred. Transcendent. Beyond measuring. Sees all times simultaneously.

[evidence needed]


Why? How can one provide evidence for that which cannot be measured?

How are you not seeing your logical flaw?
 
2009-03-25 01:29:01 PM
Millennium: aggravatedmonkey: go read isaiah 45:7, provided you read the KJB version and not the NASB or the NKJV, and we'll talk then.

When your arguments depend on a single translation, to the exclusion of other translations and also to the exclusion of the text being translated, this should perhaps be taken as evidence of a problem with the translation you're using.


let me clarify: i only throw out isaiah as an as an example, not as the singular validation to my argument. tell me, when is the bible literal and when does it require interpretation? is there some formula that i'm unaware of? fundies love to say that homosexuality is an abomination, as stated verbatum in the bible, yet when god says I CREATE EVIL, there is an translation factor involved? the inconsistantcy is mind-boggling.

but i appreciate your well stated, lucid argument. no sarcasm intended at all.
 
2009-03-25 01:29:26 PM
Deuce McStinkle:
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding: science is the search for verifiable fact; religion is the search for transcendent truth.


I love this notion of 'transcendent truth'. Truth that transends verifiable fact. Truth, in short, that has no objective basis. What sort of truth is that?

Here's a little musing on truth:

Would children raised in isolation invent a religion?
They might.
But without knowledge of the Prophet, they would not reinvent Islam; without knowledge of Jesus, they would not reinvent Christianity; without knowledge of Abraham and Moses, they would not reinvent Judaism.

By contrast, given sufficient time they or their descendants would rediscover evolution through natural selection, without knowledge of Darwin. Likewise Newtonian mechanics does not require knowledge of Newton, and relativity could be rediscovered without Einstein.

Some things are innate truths and will always be found again, and some things are simply taught as truths by individuals, and are ultimately arbitrary.
 
2009-03-25 01:30:35 PM
Zamboro:

There is no Yahweh, any more than there is a Ganesh or a Zeus. You believe in the Christian god because you were raised in a Christian family, in a predominantly Christian country. If you'd been raised in Saudi Arabia, you would probably be a muslim. If you were raised in India, odds are you'd be a Hindu. In either case you'd be every bit as convinced that your religion was uniquely credible and that all others were human inventions.


Logical flaw and demonstrably untrue. Do the research before you shoot off your mouth.
 
2009-03-25 01:31:44 PM
aggravatedmonkey: Millennium: aggravatedmonkey: go read isaiah 45:7, provided you read the KJB version and not the NASB or the NKJV, and we'll talk then.

When your arguments depend on a single translation, to the exclusion of other translations and also to the exclusion of the text being translated, this should perhaps be taken as evidence of a problem with the translation you're using.

let me clarify: i only throw out isaiah as an as an example, not as the singular validation to my argument. tell me, when is the bible literal and when does it require interpretation? is there some formula that i'm unaware of? fundies love to say that homosexuality is an abomination, as stated verbatum in the bible, yet when god says I CREATE EVIL, there is an translation factor involved? the inconsistantcy is mind-boggling.

but i appreciate your well stated, lucid argument. no sarcasm intended at all.


Knowledge of literary genres helps. If you're going to argue with the big boys, you need to catch up on current biblical scholarship.
 
2009-03-25 01:33:06 PM
colon_pow: "no, we don't do the judging in those matters ourselves. God judged them. if He judges the N. Koreans or Afghans that way, then heaven help them. he does that from time to time. people don't like it either. he judged Sodom and Gomorrah also. i'm sure the sodomites didn't like it either. I'm lookin' at you buddy."

Hitler said that he was sent on a mission from God when he 'battled the international Jew'. So did Moses, when he exterminated populations native to the 'promised land'. So did Christian revolutionary Hong Xiuquan when he wiped out 20-30 million Chinese in order to establish the Heavenly Kingdom. In every such case, God did not carry out the genocide personally, a human being claiming divine authority did so.

Human beings who believe in God are liable to believe he commands various things of them. One of those things is apparently genocide.
 
2009-03-25 01:34:14 PM
Deuce McStinkle: My Lord, you're shallow. Why says I forgot anything? I just wanted you to be specific; that's all.

Or is that beyond your ability? Or is asking you to verify your claims unfair somehow? Have I offended your sensibilities?

So sorry.


My apologies. You seemed to have a memory lapse regarding ordered genocides. I didn't know we were being tested. I should have realized it was a test when you continually fail to acknowledge that atheists have read the bible, and instead stand behind your initial WHAARGARBLE that we are atheists because we haven't read your book.

So, let me lay it out for you: I'm an atheist because I've read your book. It is inconsistent, nonsensical, morally bankrupt, hateful, misogynistic, autocratic, and just plain dumb. If the god you worship were to stand in front of me today and prove his existence I still wouldn't worship him because he is a petty, spiteful, mass murderer who clearly has no more concept of what is moral than Charles Manson.

If so, I'm sorry. But it's the truth.

Really? Do you have any evidence that supports your claim?
 
2009-03-25 01:35:31 PM
Zamboro: colon_pow: "no, we don't do the judging in those matters ourselves. God judged them. if He judges the N. Koreans or Afghans that way, then heaven help them. he does that from time to time. people don't like it either. he judged Sodom and Gomorrah also. i'm sure the sodomites didn't like it either. I'm lookin' at you buddy."

Hitler said that he was sent on a mission from God when he 'battled the international Jew'. So did Moses, when he exterminated populations native to the 'promised land'. So did Christian revolutionary Hong Xiuquan when he wiped out 20-30 million Chinese in order to establish the Heavenly Kingdom. In every such case, God did not carry out the genocide personally, a human being claiming divine authority did so.

Human beings who believe in God are liable to believe he commands various things of them. One of those things is apparently genocide.


Man, you paint with a broad brush. Keep on showing how little you know. You're doing a fine job, a really fine job. You're a real credit the atheist cause.

You don't have any understanding of covenant theology at all. That much is clear; otherwise, you wouldn't be confusing the New and Old covenant.

Research: don't leave home without it.
 
2009-03-25 01:36:03 PM
Deuce McStinkle: aggravatedmonkey: Millennium: aggravatedmonkey: go read isaiah 45:7, provided you read the KJB version and not the NASB or the NKJV, and we'll talk then.

When your arguments depend on a single translation, to the exclusion of other translations and also to the exclusion of the text being translated, this should perhaps be taken as evidence of a problem with the translation you're using.

let me clarify: i only throw out isaiah as an as an example, not as the singular validation to my argument. tell me, when is the bible literal and when does it require interpretation? is there some formula that i'm unaware of? fundies love to say that homosexuality is an abomination, as stated verbatum in the bible, yet when god says I CREATE EVIL, there is an translation factor involved? the inconsistantcy is mind-boggling.

but i appreciate your well stated, lucid argument. no sarcasm intended at all.

Knowledge of literary genres helps. If you're going to argue with the big boys, you need to catch up on current biblical scholarship.


y'know, i've read every statement you've made in this thread, and not once, have you backed up anything you have said with anything coherent. keep responding if you wish, but i'm not going to debate with you. go ahead and continue on with your mindless ramblings based on nothing more than your playground mentality.
 
2009-03-25 01:36:21 PM
Deuce McStinkle: Zamboro:



Logical flaw and demonstrably untrue. Do the research before you shoot off your mouth.


elultimoquecierrelapuerta.files.wordpress.com
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means
 
2009-03-25 01:37:31 PM
Deuce McStinkle: It's inexcusable if a HUMAN did it. God is not human. He is above all things. If God wanted me to catch fire right now, then I would. And I'd have no reason to biatch; neither would you. You're not immortal. You don't have a full understanding of all things. You don't see the universe and time as He does.

So with god it's "Do as I say, not as I do?" That's, frankly, bullshiat. If I'm told to kill children, I'm going to need a bit more to go on than "Hey, I'm god."

But I guess that's where faith comes in. If I knew, deep in my bums, that I had to kill all those kids because god wanted me to, I guess I could do it.

In short, you're not God, and that, above all things, is what angers atheists: the idea that their eternal fates DO NOT rest in their hands.

WHEEEE!!! Let's make sweeping generalizations!!! Yay!
 
2009-03-25 01:37:44 PM
Deuce McStinkle: "Logical flaw and demonstrably untrue. Do the research before you shoot off your mouth."

I have. Place of birth is the single most statistically accurate predictor of religious affiliation.
 
2009-03-25 01:38:02 PM
maddogdelta: Deuce McStinkle: My Lord, you're shallow. Why says I forgot anything? I just wanted you to be specific; that's all.

Or is that beyond your ability? Or is asking you to verify your claims unfair somehow? Have I offended your sensibilities?

So sorry.

My apologies. You seemed to have a memory lapse regarding ordered genocides. I didn't know we were being tested. I should have realized it was a test when you continually fail to acknowledge that atheists have read the bible, and instead stand behind your initial WHAARGARBLE that we are atheists because we haven't read your book.

So, let me lay it out for you: I'm an atheist because I've read your book. It is inconsistent, nonsensical, morally bankrupt, hateful, misogynistic, autocratic, and just plain dumb. If the god you worship were to stand in front of me today and prove his existence I still wouldn't worship him because he is a petty, spiteful, mass murderer who clearly has no more concept of what is moral than Charles Manson.

If so, I'm sorry. But it's the truth.

Really? Do you have any evidence that supports your claim?


I still don't see any evidence that you've read the Bible other than scattered stories here and there. You've certainly not studied it. You certainly seem to have an axe to grind, however.

If you're going to argue on the level at which you're attempting, then scriptural criticism comes into play. It you're unfamiliar with current biblical scholarship, that's not a problem. It's just a lack of knowledge.
 
2009-03-25 01:38:50 PM
aggravatedmonkey: Deuce McStinkle: aggravatedmonkey: Millennium: aggravatedmonkey: go read isaiah 45:7, provided you read the KJB version and not the NASB or the NKJV, and we'll talk then.

When your arguments depend on a single translation, to the exclusion of other translations and also to the exclusion of the text being translated, this should perhaps be taken as evidence of a problem with the translation you're using.

let me clarify: i only throw out isaiah as an as an example, not as the singular validation to my argument. tell me, when is the bible literal and when does it require interpretation? is there some formula that i'm unaware of? fundies love to say that homosexuality is an abomination, as stated verbatum in the bible, yet when god says I CREATE EVIL, there is an translation factor involved? the inconsistantcy is mind-boggling.

but i appreciate your well stated, lucid argument. no sarcasm intended at all.

Knowledge of literary genres helps. If you're going to argue with the big boys, you need to catch up on current biblical scholarship.

y'know, i've read every statement you've made in this thread, and not once, have you backed up anything you have said with anything coherent. keep responding if you wish, but i'm not going to debate with you. go ahead and continue on with your mindless ramblings based on nothing more than your playground mentality.


Sure. You win.
 
2009-03-25 01:39:37 PM
Deuce McStinkle: "Man, you paint with a broad brush. Keep on showing how little you know. You're doing a fine job, a really fine job. You're a real credit the atheist cause."

Blah de blah de blah.

Deuce McStinkle: "You don't have any understanding of covenant theology at all. That much is clear; otherwise, you wouldn't be confusing the New and Old covenant."

In what way have I confused the two, exactly?

Deuce McStinkle: "Research: don't leave home without it."

Do you have any actual counter-arguments, or just more petty barbs?
 
2009-03-25 01:39:48 PM
What does Zamboro believe in anyways?
 
2009-03-25 01:42:29 PM
Deuce McStinkle: Zamboro:

There is no Yahweh, any more than there is a Ganesh or a Zeus. You believe in the Christian god because you were raised in a Christian family, in a predominantly Christian country. If you'd been raised in Saudi Arabia, you would probably be a muslim. If you were raised in India, odds are you'd be a Hindu. In either case you'd be every bit as convinced that your religion was uniquely credible and that all others were human inventions.

Logical flaw and demonstrably untrue. Do the research before you shoot off your mouth.


Just because you say so? Seems completely true to me. In fact my friend who is a christian agrees with this also.
 
2009-03-25 01:43:06 PM
Zamboro: Deuce McStinkle: "Logical flaw and demonstrably untrue. Do the research before you shoot off your mouth."

I have. Place of birth is the single most statistically accurate predictor of religious affiliation.


Then explain how those raised in one religion covert to another.

But I guess that you don't have to. I mean, you're right and everything. You're clearly convinced that you are, and no amount of discussion will ever make you even reconsider your claims, much less entertain the notion that you might be wrong.

Oh, I know, I know: "bbbbuutttt all you X-ians--lolzors--all yu do is quote some ancnet (sp?) buuk!" Yeah, every Christian I know is absolutely convinced the he or she is right: NOPE. Most of us struggle with our faiths. Most of us hate the actions of Fred Phelps. Most of us resent the way that the far right-wing sects get the most press.

So, go ahead, hit me with a hotlink. Go ahead, keep being convinced in your moral righteousness. Go ahead, keep thinking that the thousands of years of human history have gotten right time and again. Go head, keep on believing in your flawed limited perceptions to explain the world.

Me? I'm content with searching for Truth. I'm also content knowing that I'll never fully know it.

You win, my friend. Want a cookie?
 
2009-03-25 01:43:18 PM
twowlz: What does Zamboro believe in anyways?

he believes more than he lets on. He and Maddog and others.
there is spiritual warfare going on today and these guys are on the front lines. they patrol these religious threads like it's serious business.
 
2009-03-25 01:43:29 PM
Facetious_Speciest: Dead-Guy

The bible functions as an excellent guide on how a society can surive and thrive together in a productive environment. It's a shame that no one seems to truly follow it's teachings anymore.

I think they still stone people for sexual "immorality" in some places in the world...

Also, that treating others as we'd want to be treated is what all of the "laws" of the bible are based on.

How does "rapists and their victims must be married, and the victim's father paid in silver, if the victim was a virgin prior to the rape" reflect the Golden Rule?


Old testament versus New Testament.
In the old testament the focus was on how a group of people turned to God, and became his favored group. Outsiders from beyond that group were not treated as "neighbors" in the sense that we understand it.

The "Golden Rule" is a Jesus quote which he states that these are what the laws are based on. I don't know if they were supposed to include the Old Testamnt "Eye for an Eye" kind of thing.

However, if you look at it from the context of a rule for society to "get along", it's kind of a "don't cheapen sex" thing, suggesting that if you were going to have sex (rape or not) you were supposed to stay with that partner for life. That was the punishment for Rape, but the punishment for a woman having consensual sex prior to marriage was bad too.

I suppose it might have to do with woman screaming "rape" when it was consensual sex, in-order to avoid the penalties and loss of face for her and her family. In those days, saving face was still important.

Stoning for immoral sexual acts seems strong to us because our society has evolved past that sort of thing. Now we are more conditioned to accept unusal practises, and differences. In our current society such a thing is deemed wrong, especially with all the focus on being PC.

However, in "differently" developed country, this is a way that they stop these counter cultures from growing within the society, thereby preventing them from altering the society from what they beleive is the "right way to be". This has worked to a certain degree, as evidenced by the fact that their society is still at that point after all of the generations which have passed since it was started.

May I point out that there isn't a person in here that doesn't feel that their personal views are correct. I'm not christian enough to tell you that they are immoral for stoning people, but I know that I'm personally not supportive of that because of the society I was raised in... In terms of, yes, I would hope to halt that kind of punishment within the society I'm in.

Perhaps if I was raised in a society where that was the norm, it would make more sense, and seem like the right thing to do. Sort of like some of even our nicest ancestors were pretty keen on owning slaves, and with few exclusions (that DO exist), all of our ancestors were certainly against letting women have equality to men.

One of my biggest pet peeves with the bible is the approach that women are not the equals to men, and that it's ok to own slaves and stuff. Our society has changed quite a bit since those days.

Has it been a positive change? I refer you to what I said above. From where we stand, it's improved, however, if we were in a different kind of society where that was still a part of it, we WOULD NOT feel that way, unless it's negative connotations affected us in such a way that truly seemed unfair.

As a result, I maintain that it's a great way to set-up a society to survive, thrive, and maintain itself. However, it's not one to be adopted by a bunch of folks that have already been raised within a different kind of society.

I'd love to start again.. using the current society as a baseline, from which to plot-out a similar course, but I suspect that wouldn't work, due to the adherence to political correctness concepts, and the associated concepts of the loud minority driving the silent majority.

I suspect the "Golden Rule" might have been used as a last ditch effort to transcend the evolution of the society. Personally, I think that works pretty well when applied properly.

Unfortunately, the Golden rule is trumped these days by Political Correctness. You can't treat people how you would want to be treated, you have to guess how THEY might want to be treated, and act accordingly. Being ignorant of their cultures and feelings, etc is not acceptable.

Which DOES make a certain amount of sense considering that I'm sure the significantly attractive girl who used to be in my old Science class would probably have called the police if I were to have done the things to her that I'd want her to do to me. ;)

Hmm.. in the olden days I would have been stoned, or been foreced to marry her. Either would have probably served to prevent the acts from occurring, which is to say.. served it's jutice in a blind blanket way that helps the most amount of people, and hurts the least amount of people.

To me.. that's the whole point in having laws in the first place.
 
2009-03-25 01:44:03 PM
Deuce McStinkle: Logical flaw and demonstrably untrue. Do the research before you shoot off your mouth.

Considering that 80% of the United States identifies themselves as one form of Christian or another, a very high percentage of those who live in India are Hindu, a very high percentage of those who live in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Turkey and other middle eastern states are Moslem, etc..I don't think that Zamboro's statement is "demonstrably untrue". I think it can be shown that most people adopt either the same, or at least a similar religion to their parents.
 
2009-03-25 01:44:18 PM
Deuce McStinkle: If you're going to argue on the level at which you're attempting, then scriptural criticism comes into play. It you're unfamiliar with current biblical scholarship, that's not a problem. It's just a lack of knowledge.

It's also the fact that your book is no more important to us than, say, the works of Shakespeare, and your god no more real to us than Hamlet.

And, frankly, the character of god in the Bible is a dick.
 
2009-03-25 01:44:21 PM
Deuce McStinkle: Premeditated_Road_Rage: Deuce McStinkle:

I have been following your comments through the thread and I must say that they amuse me greatly.

I do need to ask, though, why if a Christian quotes a few verses from the bible for their agenda, it is considered "Preaching the Gospel Truth", but if a non-Christian does it, it is "Quoting out of context"?

And yes, your God is a genocidal god with either no plan whatsoever or a plan so twisted and sick that it would make even the most rabid lunatic ask "What the FARK is his problem?" Think about it: If "God" so loves all people, why did "He" allow nations like the Canaanites to rise up in the first place after the flood and then order others of his 'loved creatures' to kill their 'brothers' like that?

I think it all boils down to God being a big ol' invisible Michael Vic, myself - He creates us, pens us in separate 'cages' (nations/religions), and then on days like today, 9/11, etc., he dings the bell and pits his dogs (believers) against one another for personal amusement and/or ego-stroking.

Clearly, you know nothing of God. I'm suspicious of those who make such claims.

As though you have access to God's eternal plan.

None of us do. That's the point. We are NOT GOD. How are you not seeing this fact? Deal with it: you're limited. Your understanding of God and the universe is limited. You'll never ever understand all things. Is that a tough pill to swallow?

If so, I'm sorry. But it's the truth.


Truth? The truth is that if you read the bible cover to cover, the "God" depicted within is a bipolar schizophrenic with emotional and codependency issues who does not 'plan' so much as shoot from the hip.

"He" could have forgone free will and sin, seeing as he is omnipotent and could see the future, but what fun is it to have a planet full of mindless automatons who love and praise you because they are programmed to do so without fail or question? It's not. But setting them up for a trap (the apple), then punishing them for your bad design and then forcing them to love and worship you for that punishment? Wooot! Only thing more fun than that is kicking a starving dog every time it draws near the food dish so that it will merrily wag its tail when you finally feed it.

God is an asshole, buddy, He has a Uber--Mega-Fark login and enjoys snarking daily.

There is your truth. You deal with it.
 
2009-03-25 01:47:09 PM
Deuce McStinkle: So, go ahead, hit me with a hotlink. Go ahead, keep being convinced in your moral righteousness. Go ahead, keep thinking that the thousands of years of human history have gotten right time and again. Go head, keep on believing in your flawed limited perceptions to explain the world.

Humans and their flawed, limited perceptions are responsible for the machines that enable us to have this conversation.

They seem pretty reliable to me. And it doesn't mean you stop searching for truth. It means you don't look for it in one book out of the millions that are published.
 
2009-03-25 01:48:33 PM
twoowlz: "What does Zamboro believe in anyways?"

I believe that those who say religion is the sole cause of war are taking an indefensibly simplistic view of history. However those who claim religion has only ever been used insincerely, as a pretense for war, are taking an equally simplistic view motivated mainly by their desire to shift blame away from their preferred religion. No one factor is the sole cause of any given war; rather wars typically result from a mixture of many factors, though never in equal proportion. A war might be mainly 'about' religion, with conquest and greed as secondary motivations. A war might also be mainly 'about' ethnocentrism and nationalism, with traditionalism used as a pretense, and so on.

. I believe religiosity to be symptomatic of suffering. It offers relief and refuge from the barbarism of life in third world nations (where religiosity is intense and dominant) and the unique stresses of financial/social inequity, poor health/education and the inability to improve ones conditions which many still face in America, despite her wealth and military might. There exists an inverse correlation between the standard of living indicies in any given nation and its degree of religiosity, and rather than making the claim that religion directly causes lower standard of living indicies, I would instead argue that the population turns to religion when their quality of life is poor and they have no means of improving their situation. There are some situations (see: the Middle East) in which a self-perpetuating cycle occurs; charismatic figures play upon the suffering of poorly educated refugees and laborers, shifting the blame for their suffering away from their theocratic government and onto some foreign enemy who is either irreligious or thought to be of the 'wrong' religion. In these cases terrorism results, conditions worsen, and religiosity increases. If conditions improve, citizens are on average well educated, in good health and have all of their basic needs met (i.e; high standard of living indicies) then we see religiosity decrease and eventually fade into irrelevance, as is the case in Scandinavia, Britain, Japan, France and so on. Despite our wealth, America still suffers from poor public education (science suffers the most, owing largely to religious opposition to science education wherever it conflicts with scripture), a great degree of class stratification where there should instead be a smooth gradient, teenage pregnancies due to religious/cultural suppression of sex education, social inequality for gays, poor health care (exacerbated by religious opposition to certain necessary medical technologies) and so on and so forth. As is the case in the middle east our religiosity is not due only to these shortcomings, but they are themselves caused in part by the very religiosity that they inspire.

I believe that the economic views of hard socialists and libertarians are too extreme. Neither total nationalization nor a completely free market is best for America; presently many services and institutions are socialized (libraries, utilities, infrastructure) while many others are privately operated. This is how it ought to be, although there's room for debate as to which services should be privatized which are presently nationalized and vice versa.

I believe that the United States would do well to invest in a predominantly nuclear solution to the energy crisis patterned after the French model, though perhaps with a greater supplement of renewables. More than 80% of France's energy is produced by new generation nuclear plants. Fast neutron, pebble bed, breeder and pressurized water reactors offer increased efficiency and greater safety when compared to the legacy reactors currently in use, and the waste they produce is actually *less* radioactive than the coal ash from existing coal fired power plants. Such a transition would be initially costly, but would pay for itself many times over by curing us of our addiction to foreign oil and positioning America as an energy super power when formerly oil rich nations begin to run dry.

. I believe that a government initiative ought to be undertaken to construct large scale autonomous agricultural/mining/manufacturing/etc facilities, powered mainly by the aforementioned nuclear infrastructure. Failing that, on-site renewables such as solar and wind could sustain 24/7 production by storing energy in high permittivity ultracapacitors (or whatever other advanced methods of storing electricity become available) which would fill up during periods of peak sunlight/wind and then continue recharging the robots and their support machinery when neither wind nor sunlight are available.

I believe that the United States ought to implement (nationwide) an economic system patterned after Alaska's Citizen's Permanent Fund, in which some portion of profits made by companies exploiting the natural resources of a state would be paid out to citizens of that state in the form of a monthly stipend. This would serve as a stopgap solution pending the implementation of automated labor facilities.

I believe that because we are no longer on the gold standard, some other commodity must become the basis of our currencies worth in order to safeguard against economic collapse. Currency could potentially represent some proportional share of the products of automated labor, as well as the profit from their export (assuming a period of perhaps a decade in which most other developed nations are without some comparable automated labor program) Under such a system, every citizen would be guaranteed a small monthly income which would grow as more automated labor facilities are built. Eventually a tipping point would be reached where monthly stipends would become generous enough to live on, regardless of whether one worked or not. At this point we would be free to pursue whatever hobbies we're passionate about, as the basis of our economy would have shifted from human labor to automated labor, and currency would exist mainly as a means of regulating consumption such that it does not outstrip the productive capacity of automated labor.

I believe that a good solution to both the economic and environmental crisis would be to convert some portion of unused retail space in malls to apartments, so that we might have the option of living in consolidated indoor habitats which are more efficient to heat and cool, and which can be made energy independent by integrating solar energy collectors and wind props into the structure itself. Airports could be similarly adapted while continuing to serve as air transit hubs. A minimum guaranteed daily patronage would ensure a healthy economy, and the internal climate could be kept livable regardless of how unlivable it might eventually become outside.

I believe that our government ought to subsidize the widespread implementation of Personal Rapid Transit, as it is more economical and more ecologically sound than existing forms of mass transit, and it fits in nicely with the concept of consolidated residential/commercial centers that I outlined earlier.

I believe that in the interim between the abandonment of internal combustion technology and the completion of PRT infrastructure, there ought to be a government regulated (but not subsidized) transition to electric vehicles, with the responsibility for realizing this transition placed largely on auto manufacturers. I don't believe automakers will cooperate voluntarily as they're still too entangled with the oil industry. The current industry commitment to producing pure electric vehicles may well be an empty gesture that they intend to fail, and we can ill afford another EV-1 debacle.

I believe that hydrogen fuel cell technology in its present form is impractical for personal transportation, and by the time it becomes practical we should already have implemented widespread PRT. Fuel cell technology will find roles wherever EESU technology would be insufficient, such as shipping by truck, air travel and so on. Fuel can be sustainably produced by way of large scale electrolysis plants, powered by integrated renewables.


These are a few of the things that one atheist believes in. Thank you for asking.
 
2009-03-25 01:49:36 PM
Dead-Guy: Stoning for immoral sexual acts seems strong to us because our society has evolved past that sort of thing.

But I thought that the Bible was the height of morality and the perfect source for rules of behavior?

If we've "evolved beyond" the rules of the Bible, doesn't that mean we must have access to some sort of better morality? And doesn't that imply that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of stories, rules and history and not from god?
 
2009-03-25 01:49:47 PM
Zamboro: quantum quackery

didn't read the article or posts above. caught this and thought wow. quacks at work.

www.sciencedaily.com


Zamboro: 'Something from Nothing a Quantum Possibility'

'It's Confirmed, Matter is Merely Vacuum Fluctuations'


lmao. so all that energy came from where exactly? 2 years of discussing string theory and QCD with you, and you think you've got it all figured out. You're funny.

scienceblogs.com

lmao. don't ever change zamboro (not like you could anyway you're such a zealot). you're pure comedy gold.
 
2009-03-25 01:52:35 PM
Christians called "intolerant"
images.morris.com
For the life of me i cant see why.
 
2009-03-25 01:53:24 PM
Zamboro: These are a few of the things that one atheist believes in. Thank you for asking.

I like to say that everyone has beliefs. Some people base theirs more on faith (which seems like an assumption) and some people base theirs more on experience and evidence.

Atheists tend to lean on experience and evidence, while people like Mr. McStinkle lean more on the assumption that there's some perfect, unknowable magic entity that only appeared to one small group of people on one tiny planet in a plain solar system in an ordinary galaxy amongst the hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe.

\You know what would be fantastic evidence that god exists?
\\If aliens land on the White House lawn and ask the president if he's heard the Good News
 
2009-03-25 01:54:32 PM
The Icelander: \If aliens land on the White House lawn and ask the president if he's heard the Good News

They'd probably ask if he's heard of Amway...
 
2009-03-25 01:55:40 PM
dogfather_jr: Overfiend: Well, when you believe killing unborn babies is OK, I would say that makes you anti-life.

So when a fetus dies 'naturally', does that make God anti-life?


No. If God is who the Bible says he is, he is the giver of life. And as the giver, it is his to take. Any time you get, is a gift. You are not owed more time.
 
2009-03-25 01:56:13 PM
The Icelander: Zamboro: These are a few of the things that one atheist believes in. Thank you for asking.

I like to say that everyone has beliefs. Some people base theirs more on faith (which seems like an assumption) and some people base theirs more on experience and evidence.

Atheists tend to lean on experience and evidence, while people like Mr. McStinkle lean more on the assumption that there's some perfect, unknowable magic entity that only appeared to one small group of people on one tiny planet in a plain solar system in an ordinary galaxy amongst the hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe.



Way to demonstrated a MARKED misunderstanding of my views.

Nice going. You win. Would you like a cookie, too?
 
2009-03-25 01:56:19 PM
The Icelander: some people base theirs more on experience and evidence.


Are there no assumptions in this approach, then?
 
2009-03-25 01:58:48 PM
Deuce McStinkle: Way to demonstrated a MARKED misunderstanding of my views.

This is different from your misunderstanding of my views... how?

\Pro tip: I'm not an atheist because I hate god
\\I'm an atheist because I don't think god exists
\\\Simple as that
 
2009-03-25 01:59:55 PM
GilRuiz1: Are there no assumptions in this approach, then?

There are some basic assumptions, yes, but experience has shown they're reliable assumptions.
 
2009-03-25 02:01:05 PM
TexasRedbud: No. If God is who the Bible says he is, he is the giver of life. And as the giver, it is his to take. Any time you get, is a gift. You are not owed more time.

So, this person did it right, then (^)...
 
Displayed 50 of 678 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report